Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)

The technical section of the village pump is used to discuss technical issues about Wikipedia. Bugs and feature requests should be made at Bugzilla (How to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported to security

wikimedia.org.

Newcomers to the technical village pump are encouraged to read these guidelines prior to posting here. Questions about MediaWiki in general should be posted at the MediaWiki support desk.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions (see also: Wikipedia:Technical FAQ)

Click "[show]" next to each point to see more details.

If something looks wrong, purge the server's cache, then bypass your browser's cache.
This tends to solve most issues, including improper display of images, user-preferences not loading, and old versions of pages being shown.

No, we will not use JavaScript to set focus on the search box.
This would interfere with usability, accessibility, keyboard navigation and standard forms. See task 3864. There is an `accesskey` property on it (default to `accesskey="f"` in English). Logged-in users can enable the "Focus the cursor in the search bar on loading the Main Page" gadget in their preferences.

No, we will not add a spell-checker, or spell-checking bot.
You can use a web browser such as Firefox, which has a spell checker.

If you have problems making your fancy signature work, check Help:How to fix your signature.

If you changed to another skin and cannot change back, use this link.
Alternatively, you can press Tab until the "Save" button is highlighted, and press Enter. Using Mozilla Firefox also seems to solve the problem.

If an image thumbnail is not showing, try purging its image description page.
If the image is from Wikimedia Commons, you might have to purge there too. If it doesn't work, try again before doing anything else. Some ad blockers, proxies, or firewalls block URLs containing /ad/ or ending in common executable suffixes. This can cause some images or articles to not appear.

For server or network status, please see Wikimedia Status. If you cannot reach Wikipedia services, see Reporting a connectivity issue.

« Archives, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216

Replacing a file

I uploaded a new version of this file at 00:22 on 22 December 2012. It's used in one article. I've edited and reloaded the article, but I still see the old version there. Why? What can I do about it? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard refresh, for a first try. If you've viewed that image on that page previously, your browser cache will still show you the old version. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely this is the same problem as described at #No purging on newer version of images above. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's working. I've purged the server cache, and emptied the cache on my machine from "the beginning of time", and the old image still appears in the article. But on this present page, I see the new one. Does anyone else see the new version in tangent half-angle formula? Michael Hardy (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the old image on the article. When I remove the manually specified width limit (400px), the thumbnail shows the new version (given that my default thumbnail width is 220px). The 400px version of the image isn't updating for some reason. But yes, please read #No purging on newer version of images yellowtailshark (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now, on 20 December, the new version of File:Tan.half.svg appears in the article, with the original 400px size. Because the image is not on Wikimedia Commons, then the stuck-image-cache problem is not limited to Commons images, but apparently any image in an article can get stuck, where only a new-size thumbnail will show the current image version, and using the old-size thumbnail will refuse to update for 24-72(?) hours. Follow progress at the related thread, "#No purging on newer version of images". -Wikid77 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody said that the problem was limited to Commons images. This thread, also #No purging on newer version of images earlier, began by describing problems with images uploaded to English Wikipedia. The earlier thread does have a link to Commons:Village Pump#Problem with new version of image and some of the images mentioned later on are on Commons (e.g. File:Obama and Duke Duchess of Cambridge.jpg) but neither of these were part of the original post (see here).

Whether an image is uploaded to English Wikipedia or to Commons, the actual image files are held on http://upload.wikimedia.org/ - for example, the English Wikipedia image File:Tan.half.svg is stored as http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d3/Tan.half.svg fullsize (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d3/Tan.half.svg/220px-Tan.half.svg.png for the 220px thumbnail) and the Commons image File:Obama and Duke Duchess of Cambridge.jpg is stored as http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Obama_and_Duke_Duchess_of_Cambridge.jpg fullsize. Since the domains are exactly the same, I would expect the caching problems to be similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reference bugzilla:41130 (in particular the later comments). Bawolff (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bug is still apparently present, as far as I can see. Look at Michael Kelso. If I misinterpret thing, please disregard this notice. --George Ho (talk) 19:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

user:GimmeBot and template:article history

See this thread on my talk. A while back, {{ArticleHistory}} was moved to {{article history}} to get rid of the CamelCase (there had been a redirect at the new title for several years). Apparently user:GimmeBot, which keeps this template up to date, can only detect ArticleHistory and not the spaced version. This should be a trivial fix: could any friendly neighbourhood bot operators (or anyone who knows where to find one) help the operator of this one out? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help. If the bot op is willing, I could take a look at the code and identify the changes that would be needed. 28bytes (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a behaviuoral issue of User:Thumperward, who declared that his move 'will not break one single script nor bot of any sort', and '"Prominent" Gimme may be, but his understanding of how this will affect his bot is most certainly incorrect.' Then proceeded to make edits such as [1] to further interfere with the bot. His previous actions on the page include a unilateral move of the page despite prior discussions. User:Thmpeward also failed to notify me of this. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) you were in a discussion with User:Thumperward, linked above, it notified of this (I saw it), don't you think you should watchlist a discussion that you started? - Move or no move, the bot seems not to have functioned for the name "article history" during the time that is was a redirect, that needs to be changed, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect that wasn't being used (21 times out of >30k, a couple of which at the time had just been added by Thmperward.) This issue is one facet of the long-term disruption of the FA process, and it's time that disruption stopped. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it technical, please. I am not interested in the past of the FA process but in the future. I think that the present name is the better name for that future (I am not the only one, see the move discussion), and the bot should be able to handle it, - should have handled it in the past also, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a move discussion supported by a number of people involved in the disruption of the FA process. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let's keep this technical, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no technical reason why one name is better than the other. The onus is on those who promised, at the time of the proposed name change, to facilitate that change. They have to follow through on their promises. It's not Gimmetrow's job to clean up the mess left by their broken promises. Raul654 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot, which has not run since the 19th, closes all FACs, FLCs, GANs, PRs and more while updating articlehistory. I wasn't aware that Gerda Arendt had technical expertise, and there is no reason for one name to be preferred over another, particularly when it interferes with bot code. Jack Merridew did have technical expertise; if this is yet another extension of long-standing disruption of the FA process, which has been spread to other FA pages, it needs to stop. Please restore the template so that the bot can continue closing content review pages; FAs promoted since the 19th have not been closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Sandy, what gives you the idea that I have technical expertise? I have a reason to prefer one name, as you can read in the move discussion, and I don't like to be reverted when I use that name, which the template has, that's all. I expected the bot owner to simply change, but he said "no" and got us here. Now the technical question is how to make the bot accept all names the template has (more than two). I can't help because I have no technical expertise, but 28bytes and Frietjes offered help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "gave me the idea" was your repeated reference to "technical"; thanks for the explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that this is a page for technical, not personal, matters? If I read your comments below, we don't agree (yet) that the bot has to accept all names for the template, regardless of what is currently the name and what are redirects. The present bot doesn't do that and therefore needs to be changed. Help has been offered, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I appreciate the support, but there is nothing particular stopping the bot from running. The technical issue here involves the name ("article history") and the spacing ({{ article history }}) that Thumperward chooses to use. The specific consequence is my code doesn't happen to recognize that particular combination of stuff in the text of a talk page, which means it won't update the existing data under that form (and so would likely create a second AH). Of course, I could write more code on my end to deal with yet more options, but more code means more code to maintain, more branches where things can go wrong, and slower code (when it has to check more options on big talk pages). I'm not interested in doing that, for reasons I imagine you can guess. I opposed the name change in October as unnecessary (and other reasons). It went though, in part, on the formal promise of Thumperward to fix all issues. There are a couple other solutions to this problem, but the easiest one is to put the template back where it was before October. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gimme ... so that the bot works correctly, what do we need to watch for? Only article talk pages with article history instead of ArticleHistory (space) will affect the bot? Who is preventing the original from being restored? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a rough consensus here to move the template title, but the closer said, "if any technical glitches and the like are not easily fixable, then I will move the template back". So it could be re-opened for discussion in light of the potential difficulties. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Torchiest; that seems to sum it up, then. The new template title is causing problems, and it doesn't appear that thumperward is addressing them, so it should be moved back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO "the long-term disruption of the FA process" and causes for those disruptions are perhaps a matter of perspective and perception. — Ched : ? 15:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came to add that I believe in the "FA process disruption narration" as in Santa, but you worded it better, Ched, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is a good faith explanation for why the same users perennially show up in the same discussions; I'm just not aware of what that explanation might be. In the meantime, a bot that is important to closings in all content review processes is stalled over a triviality, which seems disruptive to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it's not stalled. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason why the code for the bot cannot be updated? is it binary only or something? according to the BRFA it says it is using Python which would be trivial to update. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have offered to update the bot code but it seems the bot owner prefers to keep the outdated CamelCase of "ArticleHistory" instead of an updated "article history".

Although there've been charges that the update is part of "the long-term disruption of the FA process", this doesn't seem to be the case. Gimmetoo (the bot owner) has repeatedly said that the bot is operating just fine for all FA processes and "there is nothing particular stopping the bot from running" and it is not "stalled". It's just that the bot code doesn't happen to recognize "article history".

I admit I've been put off by the "ArticleHistory", so when I pass an article for GA, I don't mess with updating it on the article talk page. But whatever. I guess the bot owner has the last say. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CamelCase (for anyone interested). Mathew, I've not seen charges that the update is part of ""the long-term disruption of the FA process"; one question was why this was posted to WT:TFAR, a page that has nothing to do with GimmeBot, yet this unrelated issue was tacked on there to a thread about Gimmetrow being appointed delegate-- that is the issue. Looking over the move request, it appears that most editors opposed it (unclear to me why it was closed as a Move), and I will leave it to you to characterize the small group that supported it. I don't see this per se as part of "the long-term disruption of the FA process" at all; Merridew had numerous run-ins with Gimmetrow, and that move discussion occurred before Gimmetrow was appointed delegate at TFAR. So, again, the question is why an unrelated issue was re-visited upon WP:TFAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

whot? See your comment above: "if this is yet another extension of long-standing disruption of the FA process, which has been spread to other FA pages, it needs to stop."[2] MathewTownsend (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, spread to other FA pages is the issue that needs to stop; the long-term issue of Merridew/Gimmetrow is no longer, as Merridew is community banned, but that discussion occurred before his ban. WP:TFAR has nothing to do with GimmeBot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does Br'er Rabbit have anything to do with this discussion. Is there some reason why you feel compelled so often to mention his name?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider misrepresentation to be appropriate to civil and honest discourse? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I would like to pose a different question. Why is Gimmetoo turning away the offers of help he has received from three coding experts who have offered to amend the bot? -- Dianna (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Gimme has already explained the difficulties that would impose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Jenks24 (talk · contribs) (the admin who closed what looks like a no clear consensus saying he would move it back if needed) of this discussion; Jenks24 hasn't edited since November 22, so another admin may be needed to move it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Gimmitroo hasn't explained the difficulties, just "Of course, I could write more code on my end to deal with yet more options, but more code means more code to maintain, more branches where things can go wrong, and slower code (when it has to check more options on big talk pages)." By his reasoning (which doesn't make much sense and assumes infinite changes, when this is one measly change), nothing would ever get updated. Why has he turned down all help? MathewTownsend (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three different men have offered to look over the code; why are their offers of help being declined? What difficulties would accepting their help impose? -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is clear from the presence of numerous non-technical type editors in this discussion, there are clear non-technical issues involved. This is a behavioural issue centred around editors who supported an ill-considered template move, and their friends who support and enable them in various ways. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This reply does not address my question, which was, Why do you not accept the help of the technical experts (Chris, 28bytes, and Frietjes) who have offered to help you go over the script and update it? This would be a Good Thing, and an example of collaboration that non-admins could emulate. -- Dianna (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad collaboration is not happening. Use:Thumpeward has done exactly nothing so far. Nor has anyone else who has defended him. That lack of action is one bit of evidence that this is not, primarily, a technical issue, but one of behaviour by Thmnperward and his frienda and enablers, which includes you. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make sure the situation is clear. There are two possible solutions to the problem:

undo the template move
change the bot's code to handle the new template name

Wouldn't the code change be a matter of having it look for another variation of the template name? Is the bot doing separate searches for each variation right now? Or does it do a case insensitive search? In the former case, it would increase the search time by, I think, 33%? If the latter, searching for spaced version would double the search time. Is that a significant problem in either case? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, cut the nonsense. Anyone with enough technical know-how to write a regex to parse "{{ArticleHistory}}" can tweak it to be case-insensitive and eat the space in the middle. (And it should be dealing with leading and trailing spaces anyway; it's silly to have a bot that breaks because someone fat-fingers and types "{{ Article History}}" by mistake.

This is, as stated above, primarily a social issue: Thumperward wanted the template moved to get rid of CamelCase, Gimmetoo wanted it to stay where it is to avoid changing the bot. (This ties in to the greater "I'm from FAC, we're under attack, you can't make us change anything" partisan foodfight.) I don't feel terribly strongly about how the issue resolves; moving templates just to regularize the case seems like useless makework. On the other hand, this appears to be an attempt to overturn the results of a move by exaggerating the technical difficulties of coping with it. If Gimmetoo doesn't want to change his bot, then he should file to have the template moved back (and the redirect deleted) on those grounds, rather than pretending that this is some immense technical difficulty. Choess (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

of course you are correct that the actual code change is a non-issue to anyone with even a small amount of technical ability. (btw, this is also why the "offers to help" are meaningless). however, anyone with any technical experience also knows that writing the code is the smallest part of it, practically negligible. it's not enough to write code - you have to test it and maintain it, and for every future change or enhancement of the bot it means more test cases and more noise. this is not in itself unsurmountable obstacle, and if there was a good reason that requires such a change it's definitely reasonable to expect the bot maintainer to do it. the point here is that the bot maintainer does not think there really is any good reason for this extra work to be dropped on him, and i must admit, after superficially going over the move deliberation, i did not see any reason for this move other than "that's the way i like it". personally i do not care what the template is named (not crazy about camecase myself, but as far as i know it's not against the law of any jurisdiction i ever heard of), but i can definitely sympathize with a bot author/operator not willing to engage in busywork created by other people's whims, with nary a good reason. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the "harm" done by leaving the template name in camel case and the additional complexity required to parse the new title seem very trivial. What I dislike here is the notion that a bot operator can unilaterally overturn a community decision simply by being obstinate, a behavior that's rewarded altogether too much around here. Now, the original move was a very weak example of consensus (to put the best possible face on it), and I think it would be reasonable to "re-run" the discussion with a broader audience; that is, under the original assumption that the template should stay at "ArticleHistory" unless there's a consensus to move it. There should also be greater clarity as to what parties are and aren't willing to do; e.g., I read Thumperward's promise to fix things as implicitly assuming that Gimmetoo would cooperate at least to the extent of adding "article history" to this conditional; Gimmetoo seems to have interpreted it as a promise to magically fix his bot even if he obstructed any attempts to fulfill the promise. I think if it was clear how much disruption this would cause, it would be much more difficult to generate a consensus for moving away from camel case. Choess (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the following: Template:Article history existed since August 2010, the bot has to handle that name (and its lowercase version) also, NO MATTER what the actual template name is. Too simple? Help has been offered. It's not Thumperward whose action is required, but the "bot op" (also termed "bot owner"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I'm struggling to understand how you could produce that diff without having seen this one immediately following, where the name was moved back to "ArticleHistory" after an RM failed. That does suggest to me that the path of least resistance might be to update the bot, rather than refighting an RM every year or two. The benefits of moving still seem very small, though. Choess (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also struggling to understand how Gerda came up with that history on the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have a language problem, trying again: the bot has to handle both names (and the other redirects), it has nothing to do with a move. The bot should have handled both names since 2010, it's about time that it gets done. That's what you recommend as well, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the version with the space in the name {{article history}} was not used until the last few months, so the bot didn't have to handle it. The redirect existed, but no articles were using that version of the template yet. It's only in the last few months that the spaced version has been inserted into talk pages, and it has been discovered that the bot doesn't process them. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell the bot has to be able to handle all existing names, template name and redirects (6 in the list), independent of whether they are used or not, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, by your logic, if folks keep creating new names, based on weak or no consensus, bot operators are forced to do the work to maintain the bot to account for community whim, even when they were part of designing the original name and template that was in use without problem for years until a small group decided they wanted a space and a capital letter change? Is that a reasonable demand to place on all bot writers? When the template and the bot were simultaneously designed, there was one name. Who is reponsible for getting that up to six, and why should bot writers have to accomodate that whim? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Either the bot handles the names or they should be deleted. So long as the names exist, there is the possibility for them to be used. Gimmetoo is under no obligation to update their bot (we're all volunteers, no one is required to do anything). However, should they continue to refuse, someone else can write a new bot and get it approved at BRFA (requires someone willing). A new bot could completely replace GimmeBot (except task 3, which is unrelated), ~~or simply clean up the talk pages where GimmeBot adds a second article history template~~. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 17:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scary part is, I suspect that you really believe what you're saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it would be easy (it would be easier if the bot's code were available). Nor did I say it would be desirable – it is rather overkill for something so trivial. If you're referring to my idea for one bot to clean-up after another bot, on reflection I think that was rather silly, so I've struck it out. For now, I think the template should be moved back, then the redirects not recognised by the bot should be deleted (changing any existing uses of them back to ArticleHistory). The point I was trying to make was if anyone really cares enough about the template's name, then they should be prepared to do the work to replace the bot if they cannot convince Gimmetoo to change their bot. I'll add to that the point you make below: Anyone trying to do this needs to understand all the work GimmeBot does, to be sure they get it right. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some history of the articlehistory

Perhaps some accurate history will help with some of the misstatements and misconceptions on this page: from The Signpost, Taming talk page clutter. I hope everyone advocating that a bot that has done enormous amounts of productive grunt work for five or six years, without issues, reads that piece of history before advocating, "oh, someone else can just knock out a bot and do the work". As with all bot work, every content review process on Wikipedia has come to depend on something that didn't exist before Gimmetrow and two others designed the template, and the bot that comes through and records your peer review, GAN, FAC, etc in a format that didn't exist until Gimme, Dr pda and Raul654 set it up. I'm concerned about who is really going to do the work if this assault on GimmeBot for the sake of a space and a capital letter, when nothing was broken before, succeeds.

Way back in 2007, talk pages looked like the image on the left. Almost all of them looked like that, throughout Wikipedia. Raul654, Dr pda, Gimmetrow, Maralia and I got together to try to solve cluttered Featured article talk pages, the template was designed, and Gimmetrow worked through Every Single Featured Article and Former Featured Article on Wikipedia to make (for example) that talk page look like this. Then he moved on to GAs. Then to Peer reviews. Then to every other content review process like Featured Lists, Sounds, whatever, and more. Since 2007-- more than five years-- Gimmetrow and Gimmebot have been responsible for making sure that every single article touched by a content review process has a clutter-free history on its talk page. Folks take this for granted now ... a content review process happens, and no editor has to do a thing to get it added to article milestones. Gimme does it all, and has, singlehandedly as far as I know, for every single process for over five years. Why anyone is mentioning anything about "since 2010" is a mystery to me: Raul654, Gimmetrow and Dr pda designed the articlehistory template in 2007 and Gimmebot then began the maintenance. It started out as only for Featured Articles, but Gimmebot now does Everything.

FACT: Gimmetrow was part of the team that designed the template to begin with and gave it its original name. Then he wrote the bot to maintain it. Then he did the maintenance on not only FAs, but every content review process on Wikipedia for about five years.

Along comes someone years later, when there have been no problems, who decides the template needs a name change, creating work for Gimme, for all the reason of one space and one capital letter. And then the discussion is positioned as if Gimme is the one being difficult or obstinate or operating on a whim!!

Choess said: What I dislike here is the notion that a bot operator can unilaterally overturn a community decision simply by being obstinate, ... but that is not the case at all. GimmeBot was functioning fine for about five years, using the name that was used when the bot and the template were simultaneously developed, until someone else decided a template name needed to change, and then Gimme should do the work to satisfy that whim based on a Move Request that was closed on very weak consensus. There is no situation here of a bot operator being obstinate and overlooking great community consensus. The bot operator was part of the original design of the template, and then a very small group decided to make him do more work for a capital letter and a space.

IMO, the most sensible post on the page was when Kibod said: anyone with any technical experience also knows that writing the code is the smallest part of it, practically negligible. it's not enough to write code - you have to test it and maintain it, and for every future change or enhancement of the bot it means more test cases and more noise. this is not in itself unsurmountable obstacle, and if there was a good reason that requires such a change it's definitely reasonable to expect the bot maintainer to do it. the point here is that the bot maintainer does not think there really is any good reason for this extra work to be dropped on him, and i must admit, after superficially going over the move deliberation, i did not see any reason for this move other than "that's the way i like it". personally i do not care what the template is named (not crazy about camecase myself, but as far as i know it's not against the law of any jurisdiction i ever heard of), but i can definitely sympathize with a bot author/operator not willing to engage in busywork created by other people's whims, with nary a good reason. That is accurate. Someone (with Support from another who had long-standing issues with Gimme) wanted the name changed, no matter that there wasn't really a problem, no matter that this meant extra work for Gimme.

And Jenks24 said, when closing a move request on very weak consensus, including support from a now-banned prolific sockmaster who was the subject of numerous ANI reports where he followed Gimmetrow to article after article and hounded him, if any technical glitches and the like are not easily fixable, then I will move the template back. No one is fixing this, and in fact, even when the bot is operating without issue, we have unnecessary reverts of the bot when there was nothing wrong with what the bot installed.

Jenks said he would move it back; Jenks isn't editing. The notions expressed here about who is being obstinate, and who wants to create work for someone else based on a whim, are wrong. One person has done all of this work for five years, and done it well, to the point that most editors have no recollection of the work "they" used to have to do on talk pages to figure out what content review processes had been engaged. Then a very small group of people decided they wanted to change a name, consensus was weak, regardless of the work that would create for the bot operator. The idea that, oh, let someone else write a new bot in accordance with the new name ... right, and we are going to trust that that person has any idea of all of the work that Gimme does in closing every single content review process on Wikipedia, and has done that unfailingly for over five years, without mistake, and is going to keep at it as Gimme has for another five years? The solution is simple: move it back. Let Gimme keep doing what he has done well since he and Dr pda designed the template, and let us show some appreciation and respect for the work involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a diligent search, but find it scary or not, (repeating:) the bot has to support all valid names, that means, even if it is moved back, the bot has to support "article history" as a redirect, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about "diligent search"; a good deal of the history of the development of the template and the bot happened on my talk page, and I still have some memory even if growin' old ain't for sissies. Do you think bot operators should have to do the work to support persons reverting a functioning bot creating functioning articlehistories to names of their personal choice which are very rare and based on very weak consensus? I agree with the person above who said all of these other names should just be deleted; let the bot operator code for one name only. Don't let community whim drive bot operators to endless testing, coding, tweaking, writing. It's such a disrespectful way to treat the folks who keep this place running. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you see lack of respect. I see six redirects that have to be handled, and they would need to be deleted to not do it, that means delete discussions first. Interesting topic on Christmas Eve, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of history of history

Six of the eleven templates on the example talk page are wikiproject templates, which have nothing at all to do with Gimmebot. Wikiproject templates are nowadays tied together with a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. Only two of the templates on the sample page would be the sort of thing managed by Gimmebot.

SandyGeorgia, once again you are making vague accusations that people are editing on behalf of and at the direction of a banned user. This is a very serious accusation. If you have some proof that this is happening, you need to present it at one of the appropriate noticeboards or talk to one of the administrators who is most familiar with the case such as Elen or Courcelles or NYBrad. In the meantime, dropping this unsubstantiated accusation into conversation on talk pages is not an appropriate thing for you to be doing, and I politely request that you stop. -- Dianna (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you read the article to see that, in that example yes, about half of the templates are related to another template we were simultaneously developing-- don't know what your point is on that, unless to show the broad collaboration that existed. I presume you're capable of abstraction and can understand what talk pages would look like today if every content review process added a separate template, even if the example we used when writing the Dispatch contained some of both.

Diannaa, once again you are making inaccurate accusations where you are reading things even though I didn't write them. This is a very serious accusation. If you have some proof that this is happening, please point out the specific phrase in my post above that troubles you. That now-banned Merridew and his many socks had a long-standing history with Gimmetrow across many pages is well documented in archives everywhere, including various ANIs, that is relevant, and my post above contains no "vague accusations that people are editing on behalf of and at the direction of a banned user", although it is curious that you read that into my post. In the meantime, dropping this unsubstantiated accusation into conversation on talk pages is not an appropriate thing for you to be doing, and I politely request that you stop.

The move request was closed with a qualifying statement from the closing admin based on roughly an equal number of supports and opposes, More significantly, considering that it is difficult to imagine any user who has not encountered the articlehistory template on talk, only eight supports showed up; is that not a very small consensus for a move that will create unnecessary work for a bot operator on a template that was working fine for years? Diannaa, you cannot continue to read things into my posts that aren't there; put up or shut up. If you don't point out which part of my statement you are misreading, I've no way to know what you misunderstand or what needs fixin'. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The accusation is implied; that's why I used the word "vague". I will post further on your talk page since this is off-topic. -- Dianna (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And since you are the one who took it off-topic here, it isn't welcome on my talk, and responses will be here. I asked you to point out where your accusations reside in the text I wrote. Put up or shut up; if you're reading text I'm not writing that is not my problem. Do you have something to say on the substance of the matter or are you just here to make accusations at me that result in stalling discussions of the substance of the issue? I started a fresh section here to start over focusing on history; look where you went with it. The accusation is implied when I didn't write what you're reading --> failure to AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, you don't get to make stuff up (your "implied" = your failure to either read or AGF or just plain old continuing old disputes instead of focusing on the history of the template, per the new section I started), and then spread it around. Answering the parts of my post above you didn't understand belongs here where you started it. There is no answer to your post, because it contains nothing but what you cooked up in your imagination: that is, what you decided to read between the lines. I have no indication whatsoever that "all of the people" who were in favor of moving the template were part of anything. Nor did I mention anything about "damaging the FA process" in my post above: you made that up, too. And then you, with the usual weak argument, start bringing in old posts from other parts of discussions, some on other pages, to justify your claim about what I'm saying when I try to restart a discussion. No, I can't see what you see, because my mind doesn't seem to work the way your mind works. What I do know is that the age-old issues that Merridew had with Gimmetrow are well documented, and it is not surprising that he would support something that would make Gimme's work harder. Stop bringing in old disputes; stop spreading disputes around to multiple pages; stop reading between the lines. Just Stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re the statement by SandyGeorgia "it is difficult to imagine any user who has not encountered the articlehistory template on talk, only eight supports showed up" - yes, many users who have viewed a talk page will have seen the {{ArticleHistory}} at the top; but that doesn't mean that they have an opinion on what it's called. I suspect that the only ones who were aware that there was a move proposal were those that had the template on their watchlists, plus those who periodically check WP:RM.

I fall into the former camp - as may be verified by my contributions to other threads at Template talk:ArticleHistory - but I did not offer either support or oppose because I didn't consider it important enough to stick my oar in. I'm sure that I wasn't the only neutral who didn't have an opinion on what it's called. Perhaps if Gimmetoo had actually stated "this will break GimmeBot", instead of it being implied (not explicitly stated) by Rschen7754, some of us might have paid more attention. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel confident that if we can just get the distractions to stop, and keep the discussion here instead of moving all over the Wiki and involving old disputes (I originally encountered this on a page that has nothing to do with Gimmebot-- an irritation which impacted my first entries here), the bot and technical folk here who are neutral and previously uninvolved (assuming there are some who haven't been impacted by the dispute spread) will come up with a reasonable solution that encompasses all concerns. I just wanted to present the history, which seems to be misunderstood. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot needs to handle valid names

My understanding is that the name of the template and six valid redirects have to be supported by the bot, whatever the current name is, - the move history seems not relevant to that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly say that pretty much everyone here agrees that situations where the GimmeBot code is confused by encountering names of the history template that it does not recognise, should be avoided. Therefore it would seem sensible that if the proponents of the 'status quo' ({{ArticleHistory}}) do not wish to see the bot's functionality expanded to recognise the alternative names, they should list them at RfD. The fact that they are/were unused is irrelevant, indeed a stronger reason to RfD them while it is still easy to do so. Happy‑melon 14:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Happy Melon. The problem is that one of the names that the bot does not recognise is the template's current name, {{Article history}}. In fact the only version that the bot does recognise is Gimmetoo's preferred version, {ArticleHistory}. There's also the following additional redirects, none of which are currently supported, and according to Gimmetoo's remarks above, none of them have ever been supported:

T:AH - created April 2007
Template:Article History - created May 2009
Template:Article milestones - created October 2008
Template:Articlehistory - created February 2007
Template:Articlemilestones - created October 2008

I am pretty sure that the status quo doesn't have any proponents; since the template is at one name, and the bot only recognises a different name, and the bot owner has declined to modify his script, we are left with a non-functional system. -- Dianna (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with the situation, I had some involvement in the migration to ArticleHistory myself (although a relatively minor role). I think the term "status quo" is too vague, I meant the 'historically consistent' status of the template being located at Template:ArticleHistory and none of its redirects (including Template:Article history) being supported, not the status at this precise moment. The question of whether the actual template code lives at the camel-case or non-camel-case version is separate to the question of whether the other 'spellings' should be valid template names; the fact that there are (or at least could be) instances of the template that the GimmeBot code does not recognise is not a new problem. Listing the other redirects at RfD would prompt a structured discussion that would be helpful for resolving the impasse here: if the redirects are deleted it would provide support for Gimmetrow's argument that there should be a minimum of variation in the template name, while if they are kept it would provide support for the argument that the bot should support multiple names. At the moment this discussion is not really being productive, but is perpetuating a completely broken middle ground which benefits no one at all. Happy‑melon 16:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different backround color

Hello Village Pump Technical- I am writing to see what can be done regarding the white colored backround that is everpresent on Wikipedia. For many of us out here in cyberland we have extreme photosensitivity and this white backround quite literally feels like being stabbed in the eyes over and over. Is there any setting or preference that can be turned on, modified, changed, etc that would allow for the changing of the backround color? Thanks so much. A loyal reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.9.111 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you have some sensitivity that makes the regular wikipedia unpleasant, you could register, and then edit your own "vector.css" page (Special:Mypage/vector.css). the would only affect the way wikipedia looks for you when you are logged in - whenever reading articles without logging in you will still see it like everyone else.

here is in example of css that would make wikipedia appear with disgusting brownish-oink or pinkish-brown background. you can play with the colors until you find something which sooth both your sensitivity and the readability of different elements (regular text, links, redlinks etc.):

body {
background-color: rgb(157, 137, 110); 
}

.catlinks,
div.vectorTabs li.selected, div.vectorTabs li.selected a, div.vectorTabs li.selected a:visited,
div.vectorTabs ul li,
div#mw-head-base,
div#mw-head,
div#mw-page-base,
div#content { background-color: transparent; }

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by vector, registering, whatever. Is it supposed to be that hard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.9.111 (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the benefits of having an account on Wikipedia is that you can give yourself your own custom CSS stylesheet, or webpage layout design. If you register an account here, this allows you to add the code that kipod posted to your custom CSS page, located at User:(insert your username)/vector.css. That code will set your background to a much less harsh color. (X! · talk) · @300 · 06:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vector is one of several skins that Wikipedia provides. For users who are not logged in, it is the only one available for normal use (although you can try out others - for example, this page looks like this when viewed in the MonoBook skin); and for users who registered since about May 2010, Vector is the default, but may be altered.

But you need not worry about whether you're using Vector or not; once you have registered an account (and are logged in), go to this page, paste in the code shown above, and save it. The link that I have just given will work whatever your login name is, and also regardless of skin. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's just too complicated. For being the most popular website on the internet can't wikipedia make it a lot simpler to do this? It's a miracle I got to this technical support page. Now you want me to become a programmer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.9.111 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise: in order to customise the appearance of Wikipedia, you need to register an account. If you don't do that, you can't choose a different background colour, because IP addresses like 24.61.9.111 cannot be customised.

I wiil make this offer: if you do register an account, log in and then post here requesting that somebody set up your account so that all the page backgrounds become this colour - or any other colour that you like - I will gladly do that as soon as I can. But I cannot do that without knowing what name you have registered under.

Please bear in mind that I will not be available on 25 December, 31 December to 1 January, or between 23:00 and 11:00 (British time) any day. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another option: Rather than using CSS, you can get green text on a black background by creating an account, then setting just two options in Preferences: First, set Preferences → Appearance → Skin = MonoBook, then scroll down to put a check next to Preferences → Gadgets → Appearance = Use a black background with green text. Click the Save button at the end of the page to save your changes. Before you can set any preferences, you must first create your account (click the link and follow the instructions).

If you don't want to create an account, look through the settings in your web browser for an option to always use your preferred colours. The exact name and location of this option depends on your browser. This will affect all websites you visit, of course. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 21:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using Firefox, you can also try the Stylish extension (try googling it), which will work regardless of whether you register and log in. More generally, you may wish to look into a solution that dims the display on your PC more generally. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot not inserting dates on help pages

I don't visit these pages every day but I manually inserted the dates.

No response since December 21 on User talk:Ummit, which is the talk page I was told to post on.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, bots will occasionally become unavailable some times, not infrequently arouind the same time as their operators. This may be anything from a user deciding that {s)he can't afford to spend much time on Wikipedia, to a user's computer breaking down, to a user getting too sick to be able to be active here. I have no idea what happenned to Ummit; however, unless either Ummit will bring the bot back on line, or some other user runs a bot to do the task (the place to request this is Wikipedia:Bot requests), there is nothing anyone can do. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I didn't know where to ask.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did remember to check Special:Contributions/Scsbot and that's not the problem. It has been very active, but had no contributions for five days.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internal error when using archiveurl in cite web

Resolved

At Talk:Town centre#Fatal exception of type MWException I supply some details about a repeated attempt to use an archiveurl in {{cite web}} as a replacement to a dead link detected via WP:reflinks. I've used archiveurl literally thousands of times but never received an internal error/red error box before.

Don't know if anyone would find this worth looking into but I thought I'd bring it to the attention of the village pump... 72.244.206.81 (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC) P.S. Note I did not set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true as recommended since an as IP editor I've never looked into whether I can set up LocalSettings.php.[reply]

I don't see the issue now. Try it again. LocalSettings.php is the MediaWiki setup file and only developers can edit it. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 10:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now, the problem was with Swift storage for captchas which made everything requiring captchas (including account creation) fail. Max Semenik (talk) 11:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. As a registered user, I would not have seen that. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 14:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image link only is showing

A link rather than the image is showing at File:Compact Cassette Logo.svg and at Compact Cassette but there is an image here. Odd. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it too, though instead of a text link, I get a broken image icon (Chrome). The file is correct in the direct upload.wikimedia link. Chris857 (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right-clicking on either text link and selecting "View Image" in Firefox brings up this URL, which says Error generating thumbnail - The source file for the specified thumbnail does not exist. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appending ?1 to the thumbnail URL brings up [3], which displays the image correctly even though there should theoretically be no difference between the two URLs. Perhaps a caching issue? jcgoble3 (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've purged this image and now everything looks OK. Max Semenik (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's OK for you, but I still get the text links. I purged it myself (again, since I did so during my own investigation) and bypassed my browser cache, but it's still not working. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably only look ok for people accessing via europe. See bugzilla:41130. Bawolff (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the {{resolved}} tag, then. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referendum Tables

I am looking in to trying to modify the following Template:referendum (a new template may be required or new possible parameters) this would be by being able to have the options "yes" and "no" replaceable with free-form options. This has come about in relation to UK Mayoral Referendums where the options are not a yes no but a choice between one of two different systems. Any help on the technical means of being able to do this would be very much appreciated. Sport and politics (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added two new parameters ('option1' and 'option2') to {{referendum}}. An example is in User:Ruslik0/Sandbox5. Ruslik_Zero 19:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in template {{Video game titles/item}}

First of all, excuse me if this is not the right place to post this, but I could not think of a better page to report it.

I have been told that the aforementioned template ruins the table layout if either "name" parameter or "article" parameter contain the string "!!" (without quotes). I have made a test; with an only exclamation mark in both parameters the template renders the table correctly but if I add the second exclamation mark on any of them (or both) the layout gets broken. Could anybody find a fix for this? Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Table explains how !! is interpreted, but one workaround is to use "!" instead of "!". I have done so in this edit as an example. Hope this helps. 28bytes (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your idea: it's a clever workaround, but I was wondering if there is a more general solution to apply on the template itself because you know that trick, and now I learnt it, but each time a new contributor uses the template with a name including "!!" will struggle to make the table be displayed correctly. I mean perhaps there is a parser function or something like that which applied on a parameter string makes special characters be treated as plain text instead as a part of the table. --Canyq (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation at Template:!!#Notes suggests to use !!. I infer from this that no shortcut template exists - compare {{!!}} which generates ||. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, eventually it seems that there is no general solution for this... Thank you very much for reporting that reference. I'm going to add a note about this issue in Template:Video game titles/doc. --Canyq (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing slashes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese/ (for example; with a closing slash; see Cheese/) returns a 404 response and invites the user to create a new article. Should we not redirect such URLs to the version without the closing slash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese)? Do we have any articles where the closing slash is a significant part of the article name, and how could we cater for such a small minority of cases? Is this perhaps something for MediaWiki, via Bugzilla? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the benefit; /Cheese is a page, while /Cheese/ is a directory. I don't see any other webpages ending with "/index.html/". — Edokter (talk) — 19:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what "/index.html/" has to do with this, as none of our article titles end in ".html"; nor why /Cheese/ has to be a directory. There are a good many sites where /foo/ and /foo are synonyms. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the web logs for such cases, to determine the frequency with which people try to use them, might be an idea. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have 171 titles in namespace 0 (the main encyclopedia) ending with a forward-slash (/). Of these, 55 have corresponding titles with no slash at the end. In most cases the slash-less title is the target of a redirect from the slashed one (for example James Clerk Maxwell/ → James Clerk Maxwell), although some pairs are distinct (for example Apple_Monitor_/// / Apple_Monitor_///, F/ / F, Home/ / Home). Nothing that couldn't be worked around if the logs show a compelling need for this change. - TB (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. F/ is a redirect to F-number, with nothing linking to it (except this page!). Home/ is a pseudonym for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - again, with no other links than this page; Home already has a hatnote for that. Apple Monitor /// could be dealt with by a hatnote on Apple Monitor II. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being 404, Cheese/ has been viewed 27 times in the last 90 days; not counting today. Barack_Obama/ has been viewed 504 times in the last 90 days. Internet/ has been viewed 4209 times in the last 90 days. I think there's an issue here which we can resolve to the significant benefit of our readers, with a simple(ish!) server config change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you go to a redlink like Thing (comics (note the unclosed parenthesis), a helpful "Did you mean" message directs you to Thing (comics). (Your language in preferences must be set to English for this to work.) Something similar could be done if removing the final character (regardless of what it is) results in a valid page name. The wikicode that generates the current "did you mean" is at MediaWiki:Newarticletext and Template:No article text. Changes would require an admin, of course. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bugzilla:3368 is about this. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved as "won't fix"; but that's for MediaWiki, an doesn't prevent us from applying a solution at en.Wikipedia (or Wikipedia) Level. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though similar, that's not the same issue, being a typo, rather than a URL our users might reasonably expect to work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translation issue for Template:Pp-meta

Hello.

I have a problem with translating the template above to the Malay Wikipedia here: ms:Templat:Pp-meta. Seems that the coding for the template won't work in the Malay Wikipedia. The full discussion is found at my talk page here: User talk:Pizza1016#Notification Pizza1016 (talk | contribs | uploads | logs) 01:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the issue may be the simple fact that the Malay template page is not protected. The template is designed to only show up when the page is actually protected, otherwise it shows nothing and categorizes the page into Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates—and the Malay template page itself is in that category because the category is not in noinclude tags (which there's no need for on the English version because the template is protected and thus doesn't trigger the category here). Simply protecting the template page (even semi-protection) will likely cause the template to come out of hiding. jcgoble3 (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I shall preview it on a protected page. Pizza1016 (talk | contribs | uploads | logs) 15:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Babel AutoCreate

Do you have an idea of how to make create automatically by this user the categories needed to the Babel extension? Should be required at Bugzilla? Thanks Raoli (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i do not believe you need to do anything. afaiu, what this pseudo user does is tell the bable extension to automatically create a new category as soon as there is a user with this language/level combination. e.g., at the moment there isn't a single user in enwiki claiming to have level 4 in Newar (a Nepalese language, language code "new"). as soon as someone will place in their user page the template {{Babel|new-4}}, the extension will automagically create Category:User new-4. i might be mistaken, of course, but i am 84.63% confident that my description above is correct. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an unauthorized bot, I've made a note at WP:AN#Unauthorized bot? Babel AutoCreate. Ryan Vesey 18:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is an extension. i do not believe an extension (you can see it in Special:Version) qualifies as "bot". the extension code is not run by some user with some account, but rather directly on the same server that serves us the pages, so i don't see how one can classify it "bot". peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I believe you misunderstand it. It’s not a bot. The categories are created automatically by the MediaWiki software (the Babel extension), it’s just that this autocreation has to be recorded as an edit in the database, and these virtual edits are labelled as if they were done by User:Babel AutoCreate. The user does not actually do anything.—Emil J. 18:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What EmilJ and קיפודנחש said here and what I tried to say on ANI is indeed accurate. This is not a bot but rather a pseudo user created to take credit for edits made by a MediaWiki extension and it is fully authorized by virtue of being deployed by the m:System administrators. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not working 100%. Category:User simple-2 does not exist, yet it has contained at least one entry (me) for well over a year. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i do not believe there is anything wrong with the extension (let me rephrase: i do not believe that failing to create Category:User simple-2 points to a problem with the extension). as far as i could see, the extension does not believe there is a language named "simple", and more specifically, there is no known Language code associated with "simple". the extension *does* recognize some 7,700 languages, with one or two codes each; "simple" is not one of them. if there should be such a code, methinks you should discuss it on mw:Extension talk:Babel. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It did create the category, but it was then deleted again. See User talk:Babel AutoCreate#Speedy deletion nomination of Category:User simple-2 and the deletion log. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 22:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

simple is a valid MediaWiki language code: try prefixing a link with :simple: as in simple:Main Page. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ קיפודנחש: For instance in User:Raoli on it.wikivoyage doesn't work. Thanks to all Raoli (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have made a request at bugzilla:43488 to enable automatic babel categorisation for it.wikivoyage. The default for Wikimedia wikis in http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php is no categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User simple-2 was deleted after Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/February 2008#Category:User simple and all subcategories. It has been automatically recreated six times by Babel AutoCreate but is now salted (protected against creation). PrimeHunter (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rollover to text without the "Title" showing

Looking for this to appear but without the term "Title" to appear when rollingover the abbrevation:^ia
So only "$1 million Inflation Adjusted" to appear.
Any help would be appreciated! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i do not see the word "title" (tested with IE, FF and chrome on windoze 7). where exacty do you see it, and what browser and OS are you using? peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, I am running Opera (latest download) on a Windows OS. So it displays as: "Title: $1 million Inflation Adjusted" also just checked your statement in Chrome it seems your right might just be an Opera browser thing, any way to solve the issue for potential Opera viewers? ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just tried with opera 12.12, and i do not see the "Title:" part of the hint. it may be a strange combination of something in your user account + opera. can you please test it again when logged out? also, what exact version of opera? do you have any add-ons installed on the browser? peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your assistance! That is all the info I need . . . if its just my or 2% of the views out there not concerned, just was concerned before I made several edits with a code that would have to be re-edited later. I'll work on checking my Opera settings later, not sure the version but have installed the most recent updates, no matter thou. For my big concern you did a great job answering this, feel free to mark resolved and thanks again! ^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas don't use <font>— it has been deprecated for quite some time and is now obsolete. And the use of the color is suspect— see MOS:COLOR. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 15:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{abbr|ia|$1 million Inflation Adjusted}} produces the wikicode <abbr title="<nowiki>$1 million Inflation Adjusted</nowiki>">ia</abbr>. It renders as ia. The html source of the rendered page says <abbr title="$1 million Inflation Adjusted">ia</abbr>. It all looks correct to me. See http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_abbr.asp. My Opera 12.12 on Windows Vista doesn't display "Title". I don't know why yours does. Try the "Try it yourself" link at http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_abbr.asp. The mouseover for "WHO" says "World Health Organization" for me with no "Title". Does that case also say "Title" for you? PrimeHunter (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead horse

Sorry to keep beating the proverbial deceased equid, but my complaint about the bug in the B function has not been addressed, except for one other editor confirming that it is a bug. To see what I mean, just click on the B and see what you get: five single quotes. Kdammers (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say which B you click but a reply at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 40#Bold mark-up found that it happens for the B in the box added by wikEd. wikEd is disabled by default and can only be enabled by registered users. The B in the default toolbar works fine. wikEd bugs belong at User talk:Cacycle/wikEd. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not specifying, but I only see on B' when I'm editing, as no. As I stated and another editor confirmed, does not work fine. It prints out five squotes when it is clicked on unless a text has already been selected. Kdammers (talk) 07:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The box made by wikEd is shown at File:WikEd screenshot.png. Is that the one? I reported the wikEd bug at User talk:Cacycle/wikEd#B icon makes five instead of six apostrophes. I see you have also copied this section there. wikEd is maintained by Cacycle and enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. You get the default toolbar at Help:Edit toolbar if you log out. If the B works for you there then there is nothing more to do but wait for Cacycle to examine the bug. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. At Help:Edit toolbar, when I log out, I get a frozen page (i.e., buttons are inactive). The text there says, "If you click a button without selecting any text, sample text will be inserted at the cursor's position (like so: Bold text). " This is also not what happens. What happens to me is that the five squotes appear in a gray field in which I cannot type until clicking some-where or hitting the space bar. If I click in the gray area, to type some-thing, I have to add a squote to get bolding. Kdammers (talk) 05:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page categorized in the wrong category

Talk:Land's End to John o' Groats shows up in Category:WikiProject Hiking Trails but not in Category:WikiProject Hiking trails articles, which is the category added by {{HikingProject}} and also the category that is listed in the bottom of the page. I cannot figure out where the former category is added and why the page isn't listed in Category:WikiProject Hiking trails articles. I've tried purging the banner, article, talk page and even both category pages. The project banner is working on 561 other articles, but not this one, and it's been like this for at least a week. jonkerz ♠talk 10:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shows up in Category:WikiProject Hiking trails articles for me along with the other 561. NtheP (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purging is not enough. It often requires a null edit (or any other edit) of a page to update which categories it is displayed in. Talk:Land's End to John o' Groats has not been edited since 2010. The category added by the template was changed 21 July 2012.[4] Five months is the longest delay I have heard about for a couple of years. Something may have gone wrong in this case. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google's cache on site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_Hiking_Trails confirms that the page was still in the wrong category 21 December. When I'm logged out (so my time zone setting doesn't affect the time), the bottom of Talk:Land's End to John o' Groats currently says "This page was last modified on 28 December 2012 at 10:05." I guess somebody made a null edit shortly after the post here. In my experience, null edits are sometimes but not always reflected in the "last modified" time. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've nominated the duplicate category for speedy deletion. jonkerz ♠talk 02:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-summary styling bug

I've just spotted a bug in the styling of edit summaries when displayed in the watchlist, page history and in diffs. If the edit summary contains a section heading created with the code /* SomeSectionHeading */, then any spaces afterwards are interpreted literally, but the closing bracket of the edit summary appears as if the spaces weren't there. This results in the edit summary appearing over the top of the closing bracket and the undo link, etc. (I've tested this in Chrome.) I first noticed this problem here and was able to reproduce it in my sandbox several times. Is this a known bug? It seems to be fixed on the test2 wiki but I couldn't find it in bugzilla. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 100#Anomalous Edit Summary for an earlier discussion. It appears to be a problem in Chrome and not in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, thanks for telling me. I thought that I might have been the first person to notice it, but it makes sense if it's a Chrome bug that they haven't fixed yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page view stats

Hi! Didn't know where to ask so decided to ask here. I was wondering if there is some toolserver or wiki popular pages rank page (something similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Latvia/Popular pages or this? --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to template?

The infobox for women's national basketball teams {{Infobox women's national basketball team}} apparently was designed for the senior team, which will compete at the Olympics. There are other national teams, e.g. USA Women's U16 and U17 teams, and USA Women's Pan American Team which will not compete at the Olympics. However, it appears that an entry is added to the infobox for the Olympics, even if no parameters are passed.

I would like to learn one of the following:

Learn if there is a way to suppress the Olympic games section, without changing the template
Learn if there is a way to modify this template so it can be used for both the senior and other teams (in other words, change it so the Olympic section is optional (as well as the world championships, so it could be used for Pan Am which aren't world championships; the zone championship will work fine)
Learn how to create another template for non-senior teams, if it isn't appropriate to change the main template

My original plan was to create the original author, but that editor is on wikibreak.

As an aside, is this the right place to ask template questions, or is there a better page?--SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first question is relatively easy: looking at the current coding of the template, there is no way to suppress the Olympic Games section.

As for learning how to make the change, I'm eager to practice template coding myself, so I've experimented with a copy of the template in User:John of Reading/X3. I've implemented a test for "oly_appearances=N/A" using the #ifeq magic word; the actual changes needed are worse than this because all the pipe symbols in the table markup have to be replaced by {{!}} to avoid confusing the #ifeq. There's test data in User:John of Reading/X2.

That works after a fashion, but you are left with an infobox containing links to articles such as FIBA World Rankings and National team appearances in the FIBA World Championship for Women which may not be relevant for the articles about U17 teams. That would be an argument for creating a separate template.

The proper place to discuss this is probably the template talk page, with a brief link at VPT to attract attention to it if no-one responds. That way, the history of the template would be easier to follow. But never mind, we're here now. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks. I don't have time to look at it now, I'll look in the morning.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 03:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no email from password reset

My friend Polymorphism wasn't able to log in, so she used the link to have a new password emailed. It said that it was sent, but she never received it. She's checked her Spam folder. Does she have any recourse at this point, or will she have to create a new account? Nick Number (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as far as i know, the "password reset" did not yet happen: only by clicking on a special link that's sent with the "Reset password" email, the reset actually occurs. so she has 3 venues open to her:

if she will recall the old password, it should still be usable, even though she clicked the "Reset password" thingy.
she can click it again, hoping that on the 2nd attempt it will work, even though it failed on the 1st.
and lastly, as you noted, "the nuclear option" is to re-register with a new user name.

please note that my description is based on my theoretical understanding of the process - i've never actually tried it myself, so i may be awfully wrong. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's another option: register under another username, edit a bit, and then WP:USURP the old one. Are you sure you've got the username correct? Only that one has no edits - which is why it can be usurped. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ToolServer

Hi dear all

it's some days i face to below error message when i want to run my bot on Toolserver. Is here someone who know what's the problem?

IOError: [Errno 49] Disc quota exceeded --عباس‎ ☢ ✉ 23:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is not approved to run on the English Wikipedia. Please complete the bot approval process before running it again. Also, please do not use templates in your signature.

Regarding your problem on Toolserver, I don't know much about Toolserver, but to check the obvious, how much disk space are you using on Toolserver? (E.g. run "du -sh ~" from a shell prompt on Toolserver.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects POVFORK & POVSPLIT

I just changed the redirect shortcuts, WP:POVFORK & WP:POVSPLIT, because the section heading had been changed. In my experience, the section is invoked frequently enough that some more expert eyes should be cast that way. Thanks.Novangelis (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And below the section heading is {{shortcut|WP:POVFORK|WP:POVSPLIT}}, which creates anchors. If you use WP:POVFORK as the link, then the redirect will work regarless of the section heading. --— Gadget850 (Ed)^talk 02:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy table editing

Is there a way to easily edit wikitables, such as add or remove a column without having to go thru every single row? Heck is there a Dreamweaver type deal for wiki editing? Please talkback me when you respond because I might forget to come back here. Thanks.--Metallurgist (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up before. Here's a quick summary of the previous discussion: The VisualEditor will eventually allow WYSIWYG editing of tables, but doesn't do it yet. Wikid77 mentioned some tools for using wikitables in MS Word and Excel, though I'm not sure where to find these tools. Such tools would probably be more useful for creating new tables than editing existing ones, since I'm not sure they would fully preserve existing wikicode when converting to MS Word then back again (round-trip format conversion). – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 14:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some tools for doing this can be found at Wikipedia:Tools/Editing tools# Wikisyntax conversion utilities and the pages linked from there. Graham87 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of people

I am working on list of people with various sortable columns which I would like to appear in alphabetic order by their last names. If I enter the names as, for example, "John Able", "Mary Baker", "Edward Charles", and "John Doe", then the list will sort by first name. Should I enter the names as "Able, John", "Baker, Mary", "Charles, Edward", and "Doe, John", or is there some hidden mark-up to use that will let the names be sorted by last name? Thanks! Location (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See {{sort}}. E.g. {{sort|Able, John|John Able}} – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 15:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also {{Sortname}}. E.g. {{Sortname|John|Able}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for the quick reply, guys! Location (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback protection oddities

I had difficulty enabling feedback protection for 1272; see here for a permlink to the discussion (scroll down a little to 1272). Short version: feedback protection works inconsistently. Has anyone else seen this behavior? I'm thinking of doing a little testing and filing a bug report. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tedder and his bot

How do we contact whoever has been running Tedder's bot for him? It broke down again on Christmas Day and has not run since. Tedder himself hasn't edited since Oct 25, so somebody else must be overseeing this. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes in templates

Hi, the template {{katakana table}} previously used an arcane and unfriendly footnote style, which I recently changed to the "<ref>" style. It is required that the footnotes in the table are expanded immediately beneath the table when the template is included in an article. To that end, a <references> section is included at the end of the template. However, it has become apparent that unless the template uses a unique "group" in its "<ref>" tags, the references/footnotes for the whole article up to that point are expanded beneath the table. This is not what is required: the references/footnotes for the main article need to be kept separate and expanded at the end of the article. At the moment, by luck rather than judgement, the template footnotes do indeed have a unique "group". However, I would prefer to get rid of this and have a plain numbering system (i.e. ^[1] rather than the current ^{[† 1]}), which I currently cannot see how to do. An additional problem is that the article Transcription into Japanese includes two tables, {{katakana table}} and {{katakana table extended}}, both with their own separate footnotes. If I update {{katakana table extended}} to also use the "<ref>" style, rather than the peculiar existing style, then presumably I will have to choose another unique "group" name, which is undesirable since the visual appearance of the footnotes should be the same in both tables. Can anyone advise on the recommended way to handle this? 86.130.66.65 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Psychotronics and a technicism about it?

Do you think that the Grecian linguistic root of the word Psychotronics: (from Ancient Greek ψυχή 'breath, soul, spirit' and ἤλεκτρον 'amber, electron') needs a reliable source, in order to justify its presence in a Wikipedia page? Is there a problem with the corresponding template?--Paritto (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is asking for a source for it - yes, it needs a source. "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" - from Wikipedia:Verifiability. The etymology has been challenged - and if we are to provide one, find a source for it. Given that you seem to have added the etymology in the first place, it shouldn't be too hard for you to cite the source you got it from. And no, the fact that we don't state that a source may be required in the template documentation is of no significance: Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy everywhere within an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latex in MediaWiki?

Is there a tool, inside or outside Wikipedia, to incorporate Latex into MediaWiki?--Paritto (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Help:Displaying a formula. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is it possible to introduce the complete language, i.e. any kind of command, not just formulas? May you suggest me in which way? Is it feasible to "convert" Latex into Wikitext?--Paritto (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snotbot (or "Teh Dramahz break the wiki")

Am I correct in assuming that Snotbot (task list · contribs) is no longer functioning, subsequent to Scotty's departure? At User:Snotbot/RFPP, BOT_RUN is set to "Yes", but Scotty's announced that he's shut down all of his bots and tools (which is definitely true for the tools), and Snotbot appears to be overdue on its tasks - see this RPP, for instance.

Anyways, so, what do we do? Can we get a new bot (or some reincarnation of the old bot, if the licensing is right) up and running before RPP gets swamped, or should we prepare to have to archive it *gasp* manually? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of the tools impacts upon SPI as well, makes it a lot more difficult. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some of the manually archiving until this is resolved. -- Cheers, Riley 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new see also showing up as a revert

I gave someone a 3RR warning because their last edit was [[5]" which has the edit summary "(Undid revision 530265298 by Mikenorton"]. The editor doesn't understand this nor do I, as looking at the article the addition of a see also didn't revert its removal as revision 530265298 didn't have anything to do with the see also. It's a bit embarrassing to find that it wasn't a revert. I trusted the edit summary to be correct - is this a glitch or something we always have to be wary of? Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]